It is really rich that these two should try to blame Obama for the problem that they caused. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2002 and the Iraqi government would not have allowed such a thing.

It is really rich that these two should try to blame Obama for the problem that they caused. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2002 and the Iraqi government would not have allowed such a thing. McCain and Graham decided to invade Iraq with no justification in international law, overthrow its government, dissolve its army, fire most Sunni Arabs from their jobs, and dissolve most of the state-owned industries, creating massive unemployment. What did they expect to happen? In contrast, Obama opposed the Iraq War when he was in the Illinois Senate.

McCain and Graham are wrong on this matter for the following reasons:

1. The Iraqi parliament rejected a Status of Forces Agreement with the US on George W. Bush’s watch and refused to reconsider. Without a SOFA, as Sen. McCain knows very well, US troops could not engage in combat without risking being brought to Iraqi courts and charged with war crimes.
The only way Obama could have kept troops in Iraq would have been to invade the country all over again, abolish parliament and install a puppet government that would invite the US to stay. Actually, that is exactly what Leonid Brezhnev did in Afghanistan. How did that work out for the Soviet Union? In fact, McCain pursued in the 1980s more or less allied with Muslim holy warriors against the Soviets in Afghanistan, contributing the the rise of . . . al-Qaeda. So we have seen this picture.

2. The Islamic State of Iraq and other extremist Sunni fundamentalists controlled city quarters of Falluja while the American troops were there! The US invaded Falluja twice directly in 2004 and then conducted a proxy campaign there in 2007-8 using tribal levies (the “Awakening Councils”) a third time! So the US military presence in Iraq 2003-2011 did not crush the Sunni extremists in Falluja, which they had to keep invading over and over again, as is proved by the way the extremists were back in control of the city just this past weekend. If a small contingent of US troops were in Iraq now, what would they do? Could they even tell which Iraqis in Falluja were the bad guys?

3. Sen. McCain has never comprehended that the Iraqis did not want US troops in their country. Many Iraqis who don’t even like Sunni extremists would be perfectly happy to join them in fighting US troops were they again to be on the ground in Iraq. They’re just not that into you, Lindjohn. A US troop presence in a place like Iraq is radicalizing and destabilizing, not a solution to the problems.

The two maintained that US power has declined in the Middle East in the past 5 years. But if we went back to 2007 we would find the US mired in two quagmires, in Afghanistan and Iraq, its forces over-extended and doing 3 and 4 18-month rotations. It was the bogged down US in 2007 that was weak and irrelevant. No one in the Middle East cared what W. thought.

They also wanted a direct US intervention in Syria, apparently because their Iraq adventure went so well. There is no prospect that the US could intervene effectively in Syria. Even if it could, do they want to put the Syrian rebels in power in Damascus? Do they even realize that one major rebel group in Syria is — you guessed it– the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the same “al-Qaeda affiliate” they want to sent troops in to fight in Falluja!

Some people think war is the answer to every problem. It isn’t even the answer to most problems.

Refresh my memory: Was Russia particularly eager to authorize military actions against its client states (Syria is a major recipient of Russian military aid, including its air force and its chemical weapons arsenal, as well as the host of a Russian naval base) before the Libya operation?

And a whole bunch more at search term “veterans speak about Fallujah”. There are also whole rafts of webspaces created by and dedicated to all those men and women who “took the King’s shilling” and went off to flatten Fallujah, kick in doors in Kandahar and find themselves hating and killing “hajjis” and “towelheads” because the Brass pushed them into “contact” as invaders, the way cock- and dog-fighters rub the faces of their “champions” together to stir them up for those negative-sum games in “pits” across the planet… See, e.g., Iraq Veterans Against The War/You Are Not Alone, at link to ivaw.org

Doesn’t matter. Some here sneer at repetitive references to Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s statement of the truth: “War is nothing but a racket.” He goes on to explain that he speaks of the imperial wars of our great Republic, of which the business is “business.” link to ratical.org The sneerers appear to be people who profit and gain personally from, and/or have been personally involved in, or glued their identities to, the “business” activities that engender the stuff Butler, as a very experienced practitioner sickened by it, so properly decried. And it is beyond argument that the same crap continues, and because it is so profitable and has such career- and opportunity-generating momentum, it’s gaining speed…

It ain’t about “protecting the nation” or HAHAHAHA “supporting and defending the Constitution” or “preserving our democracy” much less “our way of life,” except in the sense that all those brave and scared Troops are preserving the prerogatives and wealth of a very very few.

” Some here sneer at repetitive references to Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s statement of the truth: “War is nothing but a racket.” ”

The last time I checked the official website for the Marine Corps I couldn’t find any reference to General Butler, two-time Medal of Honor recipient. It looks like his statement about war being a racket made him persona non grata there.

“The sneerers appear to be people who profit and gain personally from, and/or have been personally involved in, or glued their identities to, the “business” activities that engender the stuff Butler, as a very experienced practitioner sickened by it, so properly decried.”

You know, JT, all those weeks you spent insisting that the Syrian government had never used chemical weapons, and pushing the crack-pot theory that the rebels had gassed themselves, I don’t recall anyone ever accusing you of profiting from or being involved with the Syrian government.

What we need is an artist to give his or her rendition of Fallujah as Picasso did for Guernica. As for veterans of that carnage they probably don’t want to talk about and would most likely prefer to forget it if they could.

That’s one. As in, “…very few, if any…” Also, see Nazi love of War as ultimate answer to most if not all questions. And of course we lose most if not all arguments by being the first to bring up Nazis;^)

However, a more generous peace at the end of the First World War might have avoided the Second by preventing the punitive measures that led to an impossible political situation in Germany in the 1920s, which in turn led to the rise of the Nazis.

“However, a more generous peace at the end of the First World War might have avoided the Second by preventing the punitive measures that led to an impossible political situation in Germany in the 1920s, which in turn led to the rise of the Nazis.”

Actually, one might draw the exact opposite conclusion. At the time of the Armistice on November 11, 1918, except for the Battles of Tannenberg and Marsurian Lakes on the Eastern Front, not one square inch of German territory had experienced fighting or allied troops. This was one of the reasons the “stab in the back” theory” gained credence, that the politicians had “sold out” the Germans.

World War II in Europe ended, however, with the unconditional surrender and occupation of Germany, which in turn resulted in a peaceful Germany becoming a member of the international community. Perhaps the lesson to be drawn when comparing how the two wars ended is that unconditional surrender and allied occupation resulted in the better outcome.

I wouldn’t disagree with “Bill”, and it is exactly what I was thinking. WW II ended with a generous peace that did not try to exact huge pounds of flesh from the Germans, but instead tried to bring that (devastated) nation back in. Yes, it was occupied, but the goal was always to make it part of the world, instead of punishing it for the fact that it lost WW I, and exacting revenge in the form of punitive reparations.

I would have mentioned the better outcome from WW II, but I would have thought it obvious.

Just the fact of occupation (as also in Japan, BTW) doesn’t mean that the peace after WW II wasn’t much better and more generously managed by the allied powers than it was after WW I.

What if the outcome of WW I had been managed more like the outcome of WW II was? Would there ever have been a WW II?

“Yes, it was occupied, but the goal was always to make it part of the world, instead of punishing it for the fact that it lost WW I, and exacting revenge in the form of punitive reparations.”

This is a bit confusing. I meant to say:

“Yes, it was occupied, but the goal was always to make it part of the world, instead of punishing it for the fact that it lost WW II, and exacting revenge in the form of punitive reparations, as happened after WW I.”

” Perhaps the lesson to be drawn when comparing how the two wars ended is that unconditional surrender and allied occupation resulted in the better outcome.”

On the other hand, a more likely reason was the relative magnanimity shown by the victors to the defeated after World War II compared with the vindictiveness demanded by the French after WWI. The Marshall Plan compared with vicious demands for reparations that created fertile soil for Hitler’s propaganda.

I don’t disagree with Mr. Jerrerys and Mr. Bodden about the relative magnanimity shown a defeated Germany after World War II, as opposed to the vindictiveness (particularly the French insistence on unrealistic reparations) after World War I, resulting in the difference in outcomes. My point is that the allies could not have accomplished the re-making of Germany (and it was a complete re-making) without unconditional surrender and occupation. The same can be said for the re-making of Japan from a militaristic aggressor to a responsible member of the global community. Unconditional surrender and occupation enabled the allies in both cases to have complete control over the levers of power in government and social policy, and thus set the course that led to a happy outcome.

” Perhaps the lesson to be drawn when comparing how the two wars ended is that unconditional surrender and allied occupation resulted in the better outcome.”
“On the other hand, a more likely reason was the relative magnanimity shown by the victors to the defeated after World War II compared with the vindictiveness demanded by the French after WWI.”

But these are not mutually exclusive options. There are two variables at play here: when the war ends, and how the victors treat the vanquished in the post-war peace deal.

There is no reason why one cannot think that both points about World War 1 – that Germany didn’t experience enough hardship during the war, and that the peace deal drafter after the war was too harsh – are valid.

I doubt vets would have thing good to say and with all the depleted uranium there, why anyone would want to go there other than these two war mongers. It’s sad what we did there in the beginning by destroying one the oldest cities in the Middle East.

I Am Sorry for the Role I Played in Fallujah: As a US marine who lost close friends in the siege of Fallujah in Iraq seven years ago, I understand that we were the aggressors by Ross Caputi – link to commondreams.org

The WHO must release report on Iraqi birth defects now: The indefinite postponement of the World Health Organisation’s report is alarming scientists and activists. By Dr Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a native of Iran, – link to aljazeera.com

Consortium News has a couple of articles that expand on Professor Cole’s:

Forgetting why al-Qaeda spread: Exclusive: Al-Qaeda extremism is resurgent across the Middle East with its affiliates seizing territory in western Iraq and in neighboring Syria. But the neocons are whitewashing their role in spreading this extremism via George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, reports Robert Parry. – link to consortiumnews.com

Bush’s Anti-American Legacy: As Iraq becomes a hotbed for al-Qaeda terrorism, President George W. Bush’s legacy grows even dimmer. But one could argue that he did succeed in stirring democratic impulses in the region, albeit mostly of an anti-American variety, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar describes. – link to consortiumnews.com

Exactly how sure are we that AQ has ‘occupied’ Fallujah and that we’re not really seeing a Sunni rebellion against the chronic oppression of the al-Maliki quasi-dictatorship? Blaming all the problems on AQI/ISI smacks of the same propaganda campaign that al-Sisi’s conducting against the M.D. in Egypt.